I think it is too soon to know what they will do. For all we know right now, it may play out organically, as it did with Apollo & Midnighter. We won't know until the comics are made.
Name the wager and I will bet you they have him or her come out of the closet with a last page splash of a kiss or some glee worthy monologue or worst have him or her make everything into a sexual innuendo like Marvel did with X-Statix.
I've never read X-Statix and I don't watch Glee, so I can't speak to those comparisons, but I would be willing to wager that it will be handled with at least the maturity and relative grace that the Batwoman series has. I don't see any reason why they would take a step backward to your low expectations at this point.
If that were the case, then wouldn't they have done this-- and done it louder-- back when they were launching the New 52? Wouldn't they have made a bigger thing about the gay character in the relaunch of Teen Titans? Or tried to get a second round of press going about Batwoman, who finally got an ongoing title that continued to go in the New 52?
They had enough press at that time. Save it for when they need it.
Again, for context, Bleedingcool did not report on a DC "Hey Come Hear Us Tease an Upcoming Gay Character!" panel. They were having a panel about something else. Someone asked them a question about their stated policy. They answered that they have changed their mind about that policy. Bleedingcool made it a lead and ran with the story.
Unless their plan was to have it brought up knowing that sites like bleeding cool would run with it and the next day they could have interviews on ABC where they give the details. Oh what a coincidence... that's exactly what happened.
And based on the quotes from ABC, I think the idea that this will be a character who hasn't appeared yet is either misinterpreting what they said at the con or misreporting it. It sounds like it's someone they've already re-introduced and he will announce it in June.
I think someone in the comment section on Bleeding Cool might have made a good prediction. First off, in the same panel as the gay story, DiDio apparently hinted that Earth-2 Superman is not as dead as he appeared. I'm thinking Earth-2 Superman might be the character in question. It would be just like Ultimate Spider-Man where they got huge press about the new black Spider-Man because most people don't even know what the Ultimate universe is, but Peter Parker is still around and his stories are unaffected. If that got big press, Superman being gay would get HUGE press, but of course most of the general population has no idea what an Earth-2 is so that won't even really register much with people, and the fanboys will still have the Clark/Lois dynamic over in Earth-1.
So that's my formal prediction. If I'm correct, I think it would be clear it's largely done for shock value, but it's a book I'm not reading so I don't really care.
Rather than having the type of dialog from Gossip Girl and Glee (like they do Bunker and Ultimate Colossus) they had normal conversations like a couple and let people figure it out on their own... like in real life.
If your goal is to have it "like in real life," the reality is that both type of people exist in real life. For an example, look at two gay co-workers of mine (well, one of them doesn't work there anymore so he'd be an gay ex-co-worker, but that's not relevant to the story).
This guy I worked with for a bit tried to be in the closet when he started working at my place of employment because he was afraid of being discriminated against. The problem was that he was so flamboyant that he convinced absolutely nobody except for a few naive people and one girl that thought he was cute so she was pretty much trying to convince herself (and I don't think she even did that successfully). He was the exact type of person that you described as being not "like in real life." At one point, he was telling me a story and I don't even know what the story was because I couldn't get past the fact that it began with "So I was watching West Side Story" (not that everybody who watches musicals is gay, but when you're trying very unsuccessfully to convince people you're straight that's not the type of story you want to tell)
On the other hand, there's another guy I work with. He is not in the closet one bit. Or in his words, "I don't even know where the closet is." Yet when people find out that he's gay, they think someone is just playing a joke on them.
Both groups of people exist. And while I do agree that it would be insulting to gays if every gay character was written as a flamboyant flamer, it would also be unrealistic if none of them were.
So the plan was for Didio to give an interview to The Advocate back in July of 2011, and then hope that someone at the panel this past weekend would ask that question about the policy stated in that nearly year old interview, and then they could answer that question and note that the policy had changed , and then they could wait for ABC News to contact the SVP of publicity the next day and get a couple sentences worth of comment on it. Not Didio and Lee talking at length to one of their geek friendly go-tos like USA Today, or Hero Complex, or Gustines at the Times. Rather, they will let a publicity person give a few sentences. That was their PLAN?
If so, sorry, I don't see it. I've seen better plans for getting attention. Heck, it could be argued that the teasing of a "Gay Batwoman!" was done in a way that created bigger and better buzz than this. As we've seen with the rollout of things in the past, whether Before Watchmen, or even that NYTimes article about upcoming diversity in the DCU where the news broke about Batwoman, when they are ready to pat themselves on the back for something, they negotiate a bigger exclusive. They get it in USA Today or the Sunday Times. Not on BleedingCool. And they don't wait for a question at a panel.
Both groups of people exist. And while I do agree that it would be insulting to gays if every gay character was written as a flamboyant flamer, it would also be unrealistic if none of them were.
I would be willing to wager that it will be handled with at least the maturity and relative grace that the Batwoman series has. I don't see any reason why they would take a step backward to your low expectations at this point.
Maturity and Grace?!? Okay now you are just being a DC apologist fanboy. The characters identity is so tied up with being "DC's Lesbian" that they cant have a single issue without working it into the story. If I remember correctly it was even worked onto every comics title page. And there was always some voyeuristic shot through a window of her naked in bed or a shot through an open door of her pinning some woman against a dumpster in an alley. It was about as mature and graceful as "Dolemite".
So the plan was for Didio to give an interview to The Advocate back in July of 2011, and then hope that someone at the panel this past weekend would ask that question about the policy stated in that nearly year old interview, and then they could answer that question and note that the policy had changed , and then they could wait for ABC News to contact the SVP of publicity the next day and get a couple sentences worth of comment on it. Not Didio and Lee talking at length to one of their geek friendly go-tos like USA Today, or Hero Complex, or Gustines at the Times. Rather, they will let a publicity person give a few sentences. That was their PLAN?
If so, sorry, I don't see it. I've seen better plans for getting attention. Heck, it could be argued that the teasing of a "Gay Batwoman!" was done in a way that created bigger and better buzz than this. As we've seen with the rollout of things in the past, whether Before Watchmen, or even that NYTimes article about upcoming diversity in the DCU where the news broke about Batwoman, when they are ready to pat themselves on the back for something, they negotiate a bigger exclusive. They get it in USA Today or the Sunday Times. Not on BleedingCool. And they don't wait for a question at a panel.
Yes and no.
I don't think the plan when they made the interview back in 2011 was to go back on it. That would be giving them too much foresight and I think a good chunk of the New 52 (more than a lot of people want to admit) is made up by the seat of their pants. And I don't know if I'd say they "hoped someone would ask the question" so much as made sure someone asked the question. Maybe I'm just being too cynical (which I freely admit is a possibility), but that seems like just way too coincidental that someone just happened to ask that question a month before they plan on doing a story involving the answer to that question. And as far as hoping that those few sentences in a panel blew up into a media story. I know a lot of people have a lot of not-so-nice things to say about DiDio (some of which I would agree with, but not all), but you can't say he's naive enough to not know the moment he opened his mouth that this would be news. Does it matter if the story first broke on Bleeding Cool? If someone never heard of Bleeding Cool and first hears the story on ABC News or USA Today (and you know that story is coming), then to that person that's where the story broke. DC doesn't care who gets the credit as long as the story broke.
And I'll freely admit that I might be completely wrong on this, but I'm just not buying your view here (doesn't mean I don't love you of course - in a non-diverse, non-retconned hetero kind of way :)) ). As much as you can word my interpretation to make it out to be far-fetched, I find it a bit more far-fetched to believe that people who work in corporate public relations (which might not be their official job description but is a damn big part of the job) would let something like this randomly slip out at a convention and not have a thought process behind it. They're not naive enough to think it wouldn't get picked up on and run with.
I would be willing to wager that it will be handled with at least the maturity and relative grace that the Batwoman series has. I don't see any reason why they would take a step backward to your low expectations at this point.
Maturity and Grace?!? Okay now you are just being a DC apologist fanboy. The characters identity is so tied up with being "DC's Lesbian" that they cant have a single issue without working it into the story. If I remember correctly it was even worked onto every comics title page. And there was always some voyeuristic shot through a window of her naked in bed or a shot through an open door of her pinning some woman against a dumpster in an alley. It was about as mature and graceful as "Dolemite".
I think your memory may be a little different than what was actually put out on the page.
Yes, there were a few images, I believe particularly in 52, that made her sexuality, relationship to Montoya, and self-destructive relationships after Montoya clear. But those are establishing story points, and in fact, there were very few of them.
Every issue? Nope. "Always some voyeuristic shot?" Sorry. You can have your own impressions, but not your own facts.
Just did a quick flip through the Rucka/Williams Elegy hardcover (reprinting their run in Detective Comics, 7 issues total, and collected as a Batwoman title). Maybe I missed something, but as far as girl/girl I think I saw one clothed kiss. That was about as voyeuristic as it got, as far as sex scenes. I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups. So if they had to do that every issue, how did they miss those 7 issues of Detective? Where was the alley banging in Batwoman #1?
Sorry, call me a fanboy apologist if you feel you need to, but I think you are remembering the reputation of the work and responding to that rather than the work itself.
If I'm wrong, feel free to quote some examples to make your case. Surely they got blogged about, scanned and posted, as that stuff tends to always get titillated about all over.
If someone out there has been keeping up with the current Batwoman series, let us know what you are seeing. But, judging by how they handled the character in 52 and especially Detective, when the current author Williams got involved, I stand by the fact that they handled her as gracefully or with at least the same amount of restraint as they handle their straight characters. Who, lest we pretend otherwise, we see hooking up with people sometimes, and who do run around with their underwear outside their clothes.
I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups.
I also only read the first issue of the New 52 Batwoman title and I remember thinking "wait, she's still a lesbian, isn't she?" So either it wasn't that gratuitous or I'm just an idiot (or both).
So the plan was for Didio to give an interview to The Advocate back in July of 2011, and then hope that someone at the panel this past weekend would ask that question about the policy stated in that nearly year old interview, and then they could answer that question and note that the policy had changed , and then they could wait for ABC News to contact the SVP of publicity the next day and get a couple sentences worth of comment on it. Not Didio and Lee talking at length to one of their geek friendly go-tos like USA Today, or Hero Complex, or Gustines at the Times. Rather, they will let a publicity person give a few sentences. That was their PLAN?
If so, sorry, I don't see it. I've seen better plans for getting attention. Heck, it could be argued that the teasing of a "Gay Batwoman!" was done in a way that created bigger and better buzz than this. As we've seen with the rollout of things in the past, whether Before Watchmen, or even that NYTimes article about upcoming diversity in the DCU where the news broke about Batwoman, when they are ready to pat themselves on the back for something, they negotiate a bigger exclusive. They get it in USA Today or the Sunday Times. Not on BleedingCool. And they don't wait for a question at a panel.
Yes and no.
I don't think the plan when they made the interview back in 2011 was to go back on it. That would be giving them too much foresight and I think a good chunk of the New 52 (more than a lot of people want to admit) is made up by the seat of their pants. And I don't know if I'd say they "hoped someone would ask the question" so much as made sure someone asked the question. Maybe I'm just being too cynical (which I freely admit is a possibility), but that seems like just way too coincidental that someone just happened to ask that question a month before they plan on doing a story involving the answer to that question. And as far as hoping that those few sentences in a panel blew up into a media story. I know a lot of people have a lot of not-so-nice things to say about DiDio (some of which I would agree with, but not all), but you can't say he's naive enough to not know the moment he opened his mouth that this would be news. Does it matter if the story first broke on Bleeding Cool? If someone never heard of Bleeding Cool and first hears the story on ABC News or USA Today (and you know that story is coming), then to that person that's where the story broke. DC doesn't care who gets the credit as long as the story broke.
And I'll freely admit that I might be completely wrong on this, but I'm just not buying your view here (doesn't mean I don't love you of course - in a non-diverse, non-retconned hetero kind of way :)) ). As much as you can word my interpretation to make it out to be far-fetched, I find it a bit more far-fetched to believe that people who work in corporate public relations (which might not be their official job description but is a damn big part of the job) would let something like this randomly slip out at a convention and not have a thought process behind it. They're not naive enough to think it wouldn't get picked up on and run with.
Fair enough.
I will grant that, in choosing to answer the question, Didio would know that it would become a story. But, if I am reading your inference right, PLANTING the question? I just don't see it. I feel like, when they want to better control the message and break the story, they know they have some receptive parties, at LA Times and USA Today, especially, that will be all ears to help them do so. Perhaps an agree to disagree, but personally I just don't see it.
Not to mention-- if this supposedly starts in June, then those orders are already in. If this was about stirring up buzz to sell more paper, shouldn't they have made this happen back in April, in time for those June orders to be positively affected before first printing??
I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups.
I also only read the first issue of the New 52 Batwoman title and I remember thinking "wait, she's still a lesbian, isn't she?" So either it wasn't that gratuitous or I'm just an idiot (or both).
Agreed. I don't remember them coming out heavy handed on that one. Maybe #2 was All-Alley Action? I don't know.
I will grant that, in choosing to answer the question, Didio would know that it would become a story. But, if I am reading your inference right, PLANTING the question? I just don't see it. I feel like, when they want to better control the message and break the story, they know they have some receptive parties, at LA Times and USA Today, especially, that will be all ears to help them do so. Perhaps an agree to disagree, but personally I just don't see it.
Unless the goal is to make it seem spontaneous. Keep in mind I wouldn't place money on my theory. But I also wouldn't place money against it.
Not to mention-- if this supposedly starts in June, then those orders are already in. If this was about stirring up buzz to sell more paper, shouldn't they have made this happen back in April, in time for those June orders to be positively affected before first printing??
Good point.
Re-orders? (I can imagine a healthy overprint on this story - especially if it really is an iconic character like they're saying it is) Second prints? Or maybe even a way to push digital (oh no, this historic landmark story is sold out! But it's still available on Comixology!)?
Or maybe I'm just being way too cynical. I guess we'll see when we see how the story plays out.
I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups.
I also only read the first issue of the New 52 Batwoman title and I remember thinking "wait, she's still a lesbian, isn't she?" So either it wasn't that gratuitous or I'm just an idiot (or both).
Agreed. I don't remember them coming out heavy handed on that one. Maybe #2 was All Alley Action? I don't know.
Would anyone who is reading the book let me know which issue the hot lesbian action is in? For informational purposes only, of course.
I will grant that, in choosing to answer the question, Didio would know that it would become a story. But, if I am reading your inference right, PLANTING the question? I just don't see it. I feel like, when they want to better control the message and break the story, they know they have some receptive parties, at LA Times and USA Today, especially, that will be all ears to help them do so. Perhaps an agree to disagree, but personally I just don't see it.
Unless the goal is to make it seem spontaneous. Keep in mind I wouldn't place money on my theory. But I also wouldn't place money against it.
Not to mention-- if this supposedly starts in June, then those orders are already in. If this was about stirring up buzz to sell more paper, shouldn't they have made this happen back in April, in time for those June orders to be positively affected before first printing??
Good point.
Re-orders? (I can imagine a healthy overprint on this story - especially if it really is an iconic character like they're saying it is) Second prints? Or maybe even a way to push digital (oh no, this historic landmark story is sold out! But it's still available on Comixology!)?
Or maybe I'm just being way too cynical. I guess we'll see when we see how the story plays out.
I will grant that, in choosing to answer the question, Didio would know that it would become a story. But, if I am reading your inference right, PLANTING the question? I just don't see it. I feel like, when they want to better control the message and break the story, they know they have some receptive parties, at LA Times and USA Today, especially, that will be all ears to help them do so. Perhaps an agree to disagree, but personally I just don't see it.
Unless the goal is to make it seem spontaneous. Keep in mind I wouldn't place money on my theory. But I also wouldn't place money against it.
Not to mention-- if this supposedly starts in June, then those orders are already in. If this was about stirring up buzz to sell more paper, shouldn't they have made this happen back in April, in time for those June orders to be positively affected before first printing??
Good point.
Re-orders? (I can imagine a healthy overprint on this story - especially if it really is an iconic character like they're saying it is) Second prints? Or maybe even a way to push digital (oh no, this historic landmark story is sold out! But it's still available on Comixology!)?
Or maybe I'm just being way too cynical. I guess we'll see when we see how the story plays out.
Yes, I think the best bet is to wait and see.
But if everyone did that, the internet would go away.
It just seems to me that they are getting to the 12 issue point and want another boost. I do think though that inclusion can turn to exploitation just to get a certain type of person to read your book, but that is business, you can't really blame them, just call them "shameless" on an internet forum. :)
Or maybe I'm jut another victim of the media. I have tried hard to not let them trick me, but maybe they caught me this time. They way the things I read made it sound, I was thinking they were throwing a parade in the character's honor.
I'm definitely not trying to be a hater or anything, it is just the way I read it. You gave me more info that helped me not think so bad of it. I thank you for that. I guess we will have to wait for the character to be revealed and for the book to come out. I'm just a cynic and that is how I think of stuff.
For the record though, Grant Morrison is still an idiot.
I'm sure I'll find out as soon as it hits. Pics and stories will be all over.
I bet you are CURIOUS, Bazinga!
I bet it's one of the Bat family.
One character could switch their sexual orientation... from gay to straight. If your prediction of one of the Bat family changing it could be Batwoman.
Switching of orientation doesn't mean they were hetro to begin with... who knows, they might be switching it to bi but I'm probably stretching it there.
Weird feeling it could be Black Adam. Kind of makes sense with his ancient history and all.
Black Adam and Captain Marvel Shazam, that's soo wrong the more I think about it. Black Adam and Dr Sivana, eeew no. Black Adam and King Krull for the bear lovers. Black Adam and IBAC for the leather Daddy lovers. Black Adam and Mister Mind, not even going to go there.
Name the wager and I will bet you they have him or her come out of the closet with a last page splash of a kiss or some glee worthy monologue or worst have him or her make everything into a sexual innuendo like Marvel did with X-Statix.
I've never read X-Statix and I don't watch Glee, so I can't speak to those comparisons, but I would be willing to wager that it will be handled with at least the maturity and relative grace that the Batwoman series has. I don't see any reason why they would take a step backward to your low expectations at this point.
I think it will depend more on the creative team involved, rather than the character. There are some creators who I wouldn't want to even attempt to write a gay or bisexual character due to their previous stories or how clumsy they are with ANYTHING outside their personal experience. And a couple of prominent DC creators have made statements about gay characters that were so offensive and tone deaf that I don't think they could possibly write a story about LGBT characters that wouldn't read like some sad parody of 70's attitudes..
Sorry to divert the thread from theories on the motivations of PR flacks and the intelligence of The Scotsman, but I'd like to engage in some speculation as to who the character in question might be.
Things we know: 1: Male 2: An Iconic Character 3: Not yet introduced in the New 52.
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you The Atom.
Ray Palmer's work has been an element in Frankenstein, but we've not yet seen him in costume.
He's a long-time Justice Leaguer, so he counts as iconic.
And we never want to see or hear of Jean Loring again.
Sorry to divert the thread from theories on the motivations of PR flacks and the intelligence of The Scotsman, but I'd like to engage in some speculation as to who the character in question might be.
Things we know: 1: Male 2: An Iconic Character 3: Not yet introduced in the New 52.
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you The Atom.
Ray Palmer's work has been an element in Frankenstein, but we've not yet seen him in costume.
He's a long-time Justice Leaguer, so he counts as iconic.
And we never want to see or hear of Jean Loring again.
I think that is a solid guess. The only thing that would make me doubt it is their suggestion that this reintroduced whoever will become their "most prominent" gay character. I just wonder if the Atom could be considered prominent enough to live up to that statement?
Of course, it could be that the clue about how prominent the character would be was not a carefully considered statement. As, again, these clues were given in an answer to a question at a panel, as opposed to a crafted press release or planned interview.
Things we know: 1: Male 2: An Iconic Character 3: Not yet introduced in the New 52.
I still argue that only one and two count as things we know. Number three is an inference made by con reports that I don't think are direct quotes and even if they were could be interpreted otherwise. The direct publicity quote given to ABC News only verifies 1 and 2.
Of course, it could be that the clue about how prominent the character would be was not a carefully considered statement. As, again, these clues were given in an answer to a question at a panel, as opposed to a crafted press release or planned interview.
As mentioned above, the part about it being an iconic character comes from the publicity quote given to ABC News so I think we can consider that a clue. I personally don't think The Atom counts and that's why I'm still going to stick with the guess of Earth-2 Superman.
I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups.
I also only read the first issue of the New 52 Batwoman title and I remember thinking "wait, she's still a lesbian, isn't she?" So either it wasn't that gratuitous or I'm just an idiot (or both).
Agreed. I don't remember them coming out heavy handed on that one. Maybe #2 was All Alley Action? I don't know.
Would anyone who is reading the book let me know which issue the hot lesbian action is in? For informational purposes only, of course.
I want to say it's in issue #4 or so. There is an issue which is best read with a little Marvin Gaye on the turntable, a fine bottle of your best red, and maybe a candle or two. And it works. Because while all this is going on her cousin's getting the crap kicked out of her.
It also worked in that they're showing, not telling. You can say a character is gay until the cows come home. Show me. And show me intelligently.
As to WHO it might be? I think the Atom is a really good guess, as it has to be someone who hasn't been revealed yet, but an established character.
I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups.
I also only read the first issue of the New 52 Batwoman title and I remember thinking "wait, she's still a lesbian, isn't she?" So either it wasn't that gratuitous or I'm just an idiot (or both).
Agreed. I don't remember them coming out heavy handed on that one. Maybe #2 was All Alley Action? I don't know.
Would anyone who is reading the book let me know which issue the hot lesbian action is in? For informational purposes only, of course.
I want to say it's in issue #4 or so. There is an issue which is best read with a little Marvin Gaye on the turntable, a fine bottle of your best red, and maybe a candle or two. And it works. Because while all this is going on her cousin's getting the crap kicked out of her.
It also worked in that they're showing, not telling. You can say a character is gay until the cows come home. Show me. And show me intelligently.
As to WHO it might be? I think the Atom is a really good guess, as it has to be someone who hasn't been revealed yet, but an established character.
HA!
I wasn't expecting a serious answer to that question....
Comments
And based on the quotes from ABC, I think the idea that this will be a character who hasn't appeared yet is either misinterpreting what they said at the con or misreporting it. It sounds like it's someone they've already re-introduced and he will announce it in June.
I think someone in the comment section on Bleeding Cool might have made a good prediction. First off, in the same panel as the gay story, DiDio apparently hinted that Earth-2 Superman is not as dead as he appeared. I'm thinking Earth-2 Superman might be the character in question. It would be just like Ultimate Spider-Man where they got huge press about the new black Spider-Man because most people don't even know what the Ultimate universe is, but Peter Parker is still around and his stories are unaffected. If that got big press, Superman being gay would get HUGE press, but of course most of the general population has no idea what an Earth-2 is so that won't even really register much with people, and the fanboys will still have the Clark/Lois dynamic over in Earth-1.
So that's my formal prediction. If I'm correct, I think it would be clear it's largely done for shock value, but it's a book I'm not reading so I don't really care.
This guy I worked with for a bit tried to be in the closet when he started working at my place of employment because he was afraid of being discriminated against. The problem was that he was so flamboyant that he convinced absolutely nobody except for a few naive people and one girl that thought he was cute so she was pretty much trying to convince herself (and I don't think she even did that successfully). He was the exact type of person that you described as being not "like in real life." At one point, he was telling me a story and I don't even know what the story was because I couldn't get past the fact that it began with "So I was watching West Side Story" (not that everybody who watches musicals is gay, but when you're trying very unsuccessfully to convince people you're straight that's not the type of story you want to tell)
On the other hand, there's another guy I work with. He is not in the closet one bit. Or in his words, "I don't even know where the closet is." Yet when people find out that he's gay, they think someone is just playing a joke on them.
Both groups of people exist. And while I do agree that it would be insulting to gays if every gay character was written as a flamboyant flamer, it would also be unrealistic if none of them were.
So the plan was for Didio to give an interview to The Advocate back in July of 2011, and then hope that someone at the panel this past weekend would ask that question about the policy stated in that nearly year old interview, and then they could answer that question and note that the policy had changed , and then they could wait for ABC News to contact the SVP of publicity the next day and get a couple sentences worth of comment on it. Not Didio and Lee talking at length to one of their geek friendly go-tos like USA Today, or Hero Complex, or Gustines at the Times. Rather, they will let a publicity person give a few sentences. That was their PLAN?
If so, sorry, I don't see it. I've seen better plans for getting attention. Heck, it could be argued that the teasing of a "Gay Batwoman!" was done in a way that created bigger and better buzz than this. As we've seen with the rollout of things in the past, whether Before Watchmen, or even that NYTimes article about upcoming diversity in the DCU where the news broke about Batwoman, when they are ready to pat themselves on the back for something, they negotiate a bigger exclusive. They get it in USA Today or the Sunday Times. Not on BleedingCool. And they don't wait for a question at a panel.
I don't think the plan when they made the interview back in 2011 was to go back on it. That would be giving them too much foresight and I think a good chunk of the New 52 (more than a lot of people want to admit) is made up by the seat of their pants. And I don't know if I'd say they "hoped someone would ask the question" so much as made sure someone asked the question. Maybe I'm just being too cynical (which I freely admit is a possibility), but that seems like just way too coincidental that someone just happened to ask that question a month before they plan on doing a story involving the answer to that question. And as far as hoping that those few sentences in a panel blew up into a media story. I know a lot of people have a lot of not-so-nice things to say about DiDio (some of which I would agree with, but not all), but you can't say he's naive enough to not know the moment he opened his mouth that this would be news. Does it matter if the story first broke on Bleeding Cool? If someone never heard of Bleeding Cool and first hears the story on ABC News or USA Today (and you know that story is coming), then to that person that's where the story broke. DC doesn't care who gets the credit as long as the story broke.
And I'll freely admit that I might be completely wrong on this, but I'm just not buying your view here (doesn't mean I don't love you of course - in a non-diverse, non-retconned hetero kind of way :)) ). As much as you can word my interpretation to make it out to be far-fetched, I find it a bit more far-fetched to believe that people who work in corporate public relations (which might not be their official job description but is a damn big part of the job) would let something like this randomly slip out at a convention and not have a thought process behind it. They're not naive enough to think it wouldn't get picked up on and run with.
Yes, there were a few images, I believe particularly in 52, that made her sexuality, relationship to Montoya, and self-destructive relationships after Montoya clear. But those are establishing story points, and in fact, there were very few of them.
Every issue? Nope. "Always some voyeuristic shot?" Sorry. You can have your own impressions, but not your own facts.
Just did a quick flip through the Rucka/Williams Elegy hardcover (reprinting their run in Detective Comics, 7 issues total, and collected as a Batwoman title). Maybe I missed something, but as far as girl/girl I think I saw one clothed kiss. That was about as voyeuristic as it got, as far as sex scenes. I only read the first issue of Batwoman from the New 52, but I don't recall any alley hookups. So if they had to do that every issue, how did they miss those 7 issues of Detective? Where was the alley banging in Batwoman #1?
Sorry, call me a fanboy apologist if you feel you need to, but I think you are remembering the reputation of the work and responding to that rather than the work itself.
If I'm wrong, feel free to quote some examples to make your case. Surely they got blogged about, scanned and posted, as that stuff tends to always get titillated about all over.
If someone out there has been keeping up with the current Batwoman series, let us know what you are seeing. But, judging by how they handled the character in 52 and especially Detective, when the current author Williams got involved, I stand by the fact that they handled her as gracefully or with at least the same amount of restraint as they handle their straight characters. Who, lest we pretend otherwise, we see hooking up with people sometimes, and who do run around with their underwear outside their clothes.
I will grant that, in choosing to answer the question, Didio would know that it would become a story. But, if I am reading your inference right, PLANTING the question? I just don't see it. I feel like, when they want to better control the message and break the story, they know they have some receptive parties, at LA Times and USA Today, especially, that will be all ears to help them do so. Perhaps an agree to disagree, but personally I just don't see it.
Not to mention-- if this supposedly starts in June, then those orders are already in. If this was about stirring up buzz to sell more paper, shouldn't they have made this happen back in April, in time for those June orders to be positively affected before first printing??
Re-orders? (I can imagine a healthy overprint on this story - especially if it really is an iconic character like they're saying it is) Second prints? Or maybe even a way to push digital (oh no, this historic landmark story is sold out! But it's still available on Comixology!)?
Or maybe I'm just being way too cynical. I guess we'll see when we see how the story plays out.
It just seems to me that they are getting to the 12 issue point and want another boost. I do think though that inclusion can turn to exploitation just to get a certain type of person to read your book, but that is business, you can't really blame them, just call them "shameless" on an internet forum. :)
Or maybe I'm jut another victim of the media. I have tried hard to not let them trick me, but maybe they caught me this time. They way the things I read made it sound, I was thinking they were throwing a parade in the character's honor.
I'm definitely not trying to be a hater or anything, it is just the way I read it. You gave me more info that helped me not think so bad of it. I thank you for that. I guess we will have to wait for the character to be revealed and for the book to come out. I'm just a cynic and that is how I think of stuff.
For the record though, Grant Morrison is still an idiot.
They said a little more about who they are making gay. If its batman... Just imagine where that is going to lead. And what does this have to do with Grant Morrison?
Switching of orientation doesn't mean they were hetro to begin with... who knows, they might be switching it to bi but I'm probably stretching it there.
Captain MarvelShazam, that's soo wrong the more I think about it.Black Adam and Dr Sivana, eeew no.
Black Adam and King Krull for the bear lovers.
Black Adam and IBAC for the leather Daddy lovers.
Black Adam and Mister Mind, not even going to go there.
Anyone who could write something as complex and well researched as The Invisibles is pretty much the exact opposite of an idiot.
Things we know:
1: Male
2: An Iconic Character
3: Not yet introduced in the New 52.
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you The Atom.
Ray Palmer's work has been an element in Frankenstein, but we've not yet seen him in costume.
He's a long-time Justice Leaguer, so he counts as iconic.
And we never want to see or hear of Jean Loring again.
Of course, it could be that the clue about how prominent the character would be was not a carefully considered statement. As, again, these clues were given in an answer to a question at a panel, as opposed to a crafted press release or planned interview.
Talk about a radical revamp!
It also worked in that they're showing, not telling. You can say a character is gay until the cows come home. Show me. And show me intelligently.
As to WHO it might be? I think the Atom is a really good guess, as it has to be someone who hasn't been revealed yet, but an established character.
I wasn't expecting a serious answer to that question....